BX 7260 
T9 fl3 
Copy 1 



BX 



I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 



[FORCE COLLECTION. 



UNITED STATES OP AMERICA. 




STATEMENT OF FACTS, 

IN RELATION 

TO THE CAU AND INSTAUATXON 



it 

OVER THE SOCIETY IN NORTHAMPTON. 
TOGETHER 

WITH HIS CORRESPONDENCE ON THE SUBJECT - 

OF EXCHANGES. 

PUBLISHED BY A COMMITTEE APPOINTED FOR THAT PURPOSE. 



y 

PRINTED BY T. WATSON SHEPABP. 

1824. 



g^/f is believed^ by some individuals of J^orthamp" 
ton^ that their motives have beeii misimderstood^ and 
that their conduct has been in some instances misrep- 
resented. To present every thing ifi a fair lights and 
to let all those interested have a?! opportunity to judge 
of ivhat has been done^ they publish the following 
statement. Northampton^ October^ 1824. 



STATEMENT OF FACTS 



In the early part of January, 1824, Mr. Tucker 
came to this to\vn, to preach as a candidate. Within 
a fortnight after he came, Mr. Howe called on him 
and had a long conversation with him. Mr. Howe 
stated to him, that he differed from him in religious 
opinions and was desirous to avoid any division in 
the Society ; but, that he, and some others, had made 
up their minds, that they never would concur in the 
settlement of any person as a Colleague, unless upon 
the principles of Christian liberty and perfect tolera- 
tion. That in former years, it Avas sufficient, that a 
man was settled and known as a Christian minister 
(if his life and conversation were such as became his 
station) to entitle him to all the courtesies and civili- 
ties of Christian intercourse. That for a few years 
past, a different course had been pursued. The 
Clergy had assumed the right to sit in judgment on 
their fellow mortals, to institute a scrutiny into the 
private sentiments entertained by them, and to de- 
cide upon their correctness. This circumstance had 
led the members of this association to refuse to make 
any exchanges with neighboring Unitaiians. Mr. 
Howe informed him that Unitarian ministers, of reg- 
ular standing and unexceptionable morals had been 
suffered to attend meeting here through the day^ 
without receiving any invitation to preach. 



4 



Mr. Tucker said, he had heard something of the 
difficulties which had existed, and expressed his de- 
cided disapprobation of the course, (which he had 
been informed) his predecessor, Mr. S. P. WiUiams, 
had pursued here. Mr. Tucker said, he thought he 
should have no difficulty in relation to the subject. 
That he should not undertake to decide who were, 
or who were not Christians. That he had long lived 
among, and had intercourse with. Christians of dif- 
ferent denominations, but that he had avoided all 
difficulty by putting them all on the same footing. 

Mr. Howe then asked him, if he should be willing 
to exchange with, or invite to preach, the Minister 
of the Brattle Street Church. He said, he was not 
prepared to give a direct answer to the question. 
That its decision must involve a variety of consider- 
ations, which must all be attended to, before a direct 
answer could be given. " If I should be settled here, 
(continued he) Mr. Williams would be the elder pas- 
tor, and I should consider him as having a right to 
control the desk, and he might be unwilling.'' 

Mr. Howe told him he did not ask what he would 
dOj in any particular case, but what he should be wiU 
ling to do. Mr. Tucker replied, " I do not know 
that I can give you a better view of my sentiments 
on this subject, than to tell you, that I think as Dr. 
Nott does. He was invited to settle in Park Street 
Church, and declined the invitation, because that 
Church would not suffer him to exchange with the 
other ministers in Boston."^ 

To Mr. Hinckley he made the same statement, in 
the same way, in more than one instance ; and when 
he was told that an attempt would probably be made 
by the association, or other individuals in the vici- 
nity, and perhaps by a few persons in his own socie- 
ty, to influence his conduct in this respect, he asked, 
" What have the association to do with this subject ? 
Are not your churches independent He was told 
they were, entirely so, yet this sort of influence had 



5 



been exercised, with effect heretofore, and would 
doubtless be attempted again. He said he should 
not suffer himself to be influenced by any such con- 
siderations. 

To Mr. Joseph Lyman, he stated ''that he should 
pursue such a course here in relation to invitations 
and exchanges^ as ivould satisfy the eocpectations of 
alV When informed of the difficulty w^hich might 
be made by some of the more zealous clergy of the 
vicinity, he replied that " they could be managed 
though he said he apprehended more trouble from 
them than from the Liberal party. Mr. Lyman told 
him of the conduct which had been pursued tow ards 
Mr. Willard, by this association, and particularly, 
that on one occasion, Mr. Williams had agreed to 
exchange w^ith Mr. Willard, and the day for the pur- 
pose w^as fixed, when Mr. Williams was prevented 
from fulfilling his engagement by the interference of 
his clerical brethren. He was told also of the reso- 
lution entered into by them, not only refusing to ex- 
change with Mr. Willard, but refusing to exchange 
with those, who should exchange with him. 

With Dr. Flint he had repeated conversations on 
this subject, in which he was uniformly told, that the 
only terms upon which he could expect the votes of 
the Liberal party for his settlement, were those of 
perfect toleration. That exchanges with Unitarian min- 
isters would be insisted on, and that the doors of the 
pulpit must be opened. The sentiments expressed to 
Dr. Flint were uniformly the same as those express- 
ed to the other a;entlemen alluded to. A short time 
before the town meeting, a very particular conversa- 
tion took place between him and Dr. Flint, in which 
Dr. Flint told Mr. Tucker, that the subject of ex- 
changes was much talked of abroad, in reference to 
his settlement, and people were anxious to know 
what he intended to do. That enquiries w ere often 
made, and he washed to know w hat he might say from 
hira upon that subject. '- 1 knotor said Mr. Tucker, 



6 



what you mid your friends want^ and if I should 
be settled here^ you may rest assured they shall not 
be disappointed.'^^ He then added, " If there was a 
single member of my society, who was anxious to 
hear any particular minister, in regular standing and 
of good character, I would gratify him ; and if I could 
not do it in any other way, I would take my horse 
and chaise and fetch him.'' 

On Friday evening, previous to the town meeting, 
an interview was had between several of the Liberal 
party, and some of the Orthodox, to see if any arrange- 
ment could be made on the subject of exchanges* — 
Mr. J. H. Lyman made some remarks on the subject, 
and concluded by saying, that he should have no ob- 
jection, that Unitarian ministers, who happened to be 
here, and who had not rendered themselves obnox- 
ious by their actions or writings, should be occasion- 
ally invited to preach. He was explicitly told, that 
it would be no satisfaction to the Liberal party, to 
have an Unitarian minister occasionally smuggled 
into the pulpit. That it was the principle we were 
contending for, and not an idle ceremony, or a child- 
ish gratification. 

Mr. Bates said, he was willing exchanges should 
be made, but he thought the subject ought to be left 
entirely with the minister, and he was willing to 
leave it with him. That he was satisfied the Liberal 
party would gain every thing they desired, if they 
were only quiet. That Mr. Tucker was a man of 
liberal feelings, and would naturally bring his people 
to coincide with him ; but to bring the subject before 
the town, and make it the theme of public discussion, 
would be thrusting a fire-brand into a magazine of 
powder. That, though he was willing himself, that 
the course we desired should be pursued, and he be- 
lieved many of the Church were of the same senti- 
ment, yet some of them, he knew, would not listen 
to the proposition, for a moment, in the present state 
of their feelings, and he thought a majority of the. 



7 



Church would not agree to it. That their prejudice^^ 
on this subject might be overcome, and the opinion 
and reasoning of Mr. Tucker might have this effect ; 
but if the subject were started now, they might pledge 
themselves in such a way as to make any change 
hopeless. 

The other gentlemen present, expressed their wil- 
lingness, that the course we desired should be pur- 
sued, and regretted that a different one had ever 
been adopted^ but they all concurred in the opinion, 
that it was inexpedient that any thing should be done 
at this time. 

We should probably have adopted the advice of 
our Orthodox friends, (which we could not doubt 
was sincerely given) and have rested satisfied, from 
what had been said and done, that our wishes would 
have been fulfilled ; but, we recollected, that in two 
instances, in the old county of Hampshire, the friends 
of Liberal Christianity had been disappointed upon 
this subject. From the declarations and assurances 
of their ministers, while candidates for settlement, 
they thought they might expect, that they would 
make exchanges with Unitarians after settlement. 
In one instance, exchanges had actually been made, 
while the individual was a candidate, and the excuse 
for refusing to continue this practice afterwards was, 
that it would give offence to a portion of the churchy 
who liad conscientious scruples on the subject. 

We thought it our duty therefore, to appeal to the 
town upon the subject. The following vote and pre- 
amble were prepared for this purpose : 

"Whereas it is provided by the Constitution of 
this Commonwealth, that every denomination of 
Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as 
good subjects, shall be equally under the protection 
of the law ; and that no subordination of any one sect 
to another shall be estabhshed by law, the object of 
which provision is, to secure an equality of rights^ 



8 



so far as may be to every citizen of this Common- 
wealth : And whereas, it is well known, that there 
are many members of this society, whose religious 
sentiments differ from those of their present pastor, 
but who are desirous to preserve " the spirit of unity 
in the bond of peace,'' and are willing to concur in 
the settlement of a colleague, whose religious senti- 
ments are different from their own, if it can be done 
consistently with the duty they owe themselves as 
Christian freemen : And, whereas, for several years 
past, respectable, devout, and regularly ordained con- 
gregational ministers, who differ in sentiment from 
our pastor, have not been invited to preach in our 
pulpit, which has been a subject of deep regret to 
many individuals of this society : 

Now, therefore, for the purpose of satisfying the 
members aforesaid, that we recognize them as Chris- 
tian brethren^ — that we do not consider them as dif- 
fering so essentially from us in their views of the 
doctrines of Christianity as to render it improper for 
us to continue to join in the performance of those 
acts of religious worship, which are enjoined upon 
us by our holy religion — to shew them that we res- 
pect the rights of a minority, while we claim to ex- 
ercise the power of a majority— to preserve the 
unity of this society, (which has continued without 
interruption, from the first settlement of the coun- 
try,) by preventing any divisions from springing up 
among us : — 

Voted, That it is the wish of this society, that the 
colleague who may be settled with us, in pursuance 
of the vote passed in November last, do not refuse 
to exchange with, or to suffer to preach in the desk, 
any pious, moral, congregational minister, on account 
of any difference from him in religious sentiment.'' 

After the town meeting w^as opened, a motion was 
made to give Mr. Tucker a call, by Mr. D. S. Whit- 
ney. Mr. Howe stated to the town^ that he had in- 



9 



tended to submit a proposition for their considera- 
tion, and that the decision of the town on that propo- 
sition, would govern his conduct on the present oc- 
casion. That it was probably well known to all of 
them, that he was an Unitarian. That he was a sin- 
cere believer in the Gospel, arid strongly desirous to 
support the ordinances of religion, and to uphold the 
christian ministry. That, as a majority of this town 
differed from him in religious opinions, he was wil- 
ling to acquiesce in the choice of a minister whose 
sentiments coincided with theirs. That he had no 
objection to the present candidate, and would give 
him his support, upon condition that the class of 
Christians to which he belonged, were recognized as 
such. That the ministers, who thought as he did, 
had for several years been excluded from the desk ; 
and, that unless they could be admitted, and all dis- 
tinctions between them and other clergymen could 
be abolished, he should be compelled, however re- 
luctantly, to vote against giving a call to any body. 
That having found this practice established when he 
came to this town, and considering the advanced age 
of Mr. Williams, he had not thought it a duty to 
make any difficulty upon the subject, though it had 
given him much pain ; but, that now, as we were 
about to settle a young man, and he was called upon 
to act, he could no longer forbear to come forward, 
and claim perfect Christian Liberty and free Tol- 
eration. 

As the motion of Mr. Whitney had been seconded, 
the vote offered by Mr. Howe could not be consid- 
ered, until that was disposed of, unless the mover 
would consent to withdraw it. Mr. Howe requested 
him to do this, and when he hesitated about com- 
plying, Mr. Howe stated to him that he should with- 
hold his support, and so would his friends, from Mr. 
Whitney's vote, until the minds of the people were 
known, in relation to the subject embraced in Mr. 
Howe's vote. Mr. Whitney withdrew his motion, 
2, 



It) 



and the vote inserted above was then taken into 
consideration. It was supported by all those who 
advocated it, on general principles. No distinction 
was made between invitations and exchanges. The 
grievance most divelt upon was, probably, the neg- 
lect to invite those Unitarian clergymen to preach, 
who happened to be here. Yet this was merely in- 
tended to illustrate the principle, by which those 
were governed, who had thus conducted. Exchanges 
however were spoken of, particularly by Mr. Hinck- 
ley. He stated the course that Dr. Forbes used to 
pursue, in making exchanges with the venerable Dr. 
Fisk, of South Brookfield, who was called an Armi- 
nian (as he said) in those days, but would probably 
be considered an Unitarian now. That his father, 
though a rigid Calvinist, was gratified at the course 
pursued by Dr. Forbes, and Mr. Hinckley said he 
wished to see as liberal and Christian a spirit pre- 
vail here. 

The proposition was met by the town, in a man- 
ner altogether different from what we had been led 
to expect. No opposition was made to the principle 
of the vote. Some part of the preamble was object- 
ed to, and a modification of the vote proposed, but 
no sacrifice of its object was asked for. The first 
clause in the preamble was objected to, merely be- 
cause it contained a political truism, which could not 
be controverted. The third was objected to, because 
it was said, it implied a censure upon the present 
pastor, and as this was not intended, it was with- 
drawn as soon as the suggestion was made. The 
last section was objected to, rather upon the ground 
of its being superfluous, than because it contained 
any thing exceptionable. It was urged that the vote 
was all that was of importance, and it was stated 
that all that was wished from the preamble was, to 
have the motives of those who submitted the vote 
understood. Their views were now apprehended by 
all present, and the preamble would lose its impor- 



11 



mnce if the vote itself were passed. It was only 
necessary to retain so much of it as would render 
the vote intelligible to those who should hereafter 
examine it. The phraseology of the vote itself was 
modified, to put the subject upon the most catholic 
and liberal footing. This was not asked for at first, 
because it was supposed that nobody but those of 
the Congregational order, were interested in the 
question. 

The practice of the Church, in inviting all classes 
of Christian professors, without instituting any scru- 
tiny into their speculative opinions, was adverted to 
in the debate, and a wish was expressed, that the 
same liberal principle, which prevailed at the com- 
munion table, might rise to the desk. 

Mr. Hinckley particularly, adverted to the influ- 
ence of the Orthodox clergy in this vicinity, and ex- 
plicitly stated that it was his object to guard against 
it. For that object exclusively, he proposed a vote, 
which was afterwards withdrawn by him. 

During the whole discussion, it was taken for 
granted, or seemed to be, that Mr. Tucker could 
have no objection to exchanging, if the town were 
willing, and, it was upon this ground, that the ex- 
pression was changed, from the wishes of the town, 
to a mere expression of their willingness. 

It was suggested by Mr. Bates, that the phrase- 
ology, " it is the wish of the society that the col- 
league do not refuse," would make it the duty of the 
colleague to exchange with every body who might 
propose an exchange, however strong his objections 
might be to his personal character. That the right 
of private judgment would be taken away ; and, 
though it was stated, that the vote only expressed a 
wish that he should not refuse to exchange on ac- 
count of any difference of sentiment^ leaving him the 
right to refuse for any other reason, yet, as it was 
insisted, that the vote was susceptible of that con- 
struction ; and, it was said there were many Ortho- 



12 



dox clergymen, with whom they should not wish the 
colleague to exchange, the alteration of the vote was 
assented to by those who proposed it. 

When Mr. Howe expressed a preference to retain- 
ing the word wisli^ because it would be a little more 
likely to influence Mr. Tucker, Mr. D. S. Whitney 
said, " after the conversations, Mr. Howe, you have 
had with Mr. Tucker on this subject, I should not 
suppose you could want any further assurance of the 
course he would pursue." Mr. Howe told him, on 
the whole, that it would look like distrusting Mr. 
Tucker, and he would not oppose the exchange. 

After this full and free discussion of the question 
of exchanges^ which we thought involved the great 
c^uestion of Christian Liberty and free Toleration, 
the following vote was unanimously adopted : 

Whereas, it is well known, that there are many 
members of this Society, whose religious sentiments 
differ from those of their present pastor, but who 
are desirous to preserve " the spirit of unity in the 
bond of peace," and are willing to concur in the set- 
tlement of a Colleague, whose religious sentiments 
are different from their own : 

Therefore, voted unanimously, that this society 
are willing that the Colleague, who may be settled 
with us in pursuance of the vote passed in November 
last, should exchange with^ or invite to preach, in the 
desk, any pious Clergyman, of any denomination of 
Christians." 

The meeting was then adjourned for dinner. At 
dinner Mr. Tucker was informed of the proceedings 
of the town, and was informed (as he said) that he 
would probably be enquired of in the course of the 
afternoon, as to his conscientious scruples on the sub- 
ject of exchanges. In the afternoon, a committee was 
appointed to wait on Mr. Tucker, in consequence of 
a vote which had been passed to give him a call. — 
Mr. Hinckley was chairman of this committee, and 



13 



Upon meeting Mr. Tucker, he read to him the fore- 
going vote, and he was asked, whether he had any 
conscientious scruples about carrying this vote into 
effect. He said he had none at all : That he cordi- 
ally approved of the vote, and was glad it had been 
adopted. The vote giving him a call was then read 
to him, and the conversation changed to that subject. 

A few weeks after the installation of Mr. Tucker, 
Mr. Peabody, of Springfield, wrote him a letter, say- 
ing he should be happy to make an exchange when- 
ever it might be agreeable to Mr. Tucker.^ To this 
Mr. Tucker replied, stating that he had not been 
much in the habit of making exchanges in the place 
he came from — that he was reluctant to preach be- 
fore strangers — that he had no horse and chaise — 
and had not become acquainted with his people : 
But not reciprocating the civility proffered, by say- 

* This letter of Mr. Peabody has been much misunderstood. It has 
been supposed by many to have contained a proposal for an immediate 
exchang-e, and Mr. Peabody has been much censured for his precipitancy. 
The letter, which was shewn by Mr. Tucker to Mr. Hinckley and Mr. 
Howe, a short time after it was written, contains no such proposition. It 
merely proposes an exchang-e " whenever^'' it may be agreeable to Mr. 
Tucker. We had intended to insert both the letter and answer in this 
statement, and for this purpose the following letter was addressed to 
Mr. Tucker : 

JSTorthampton, August 9, 1824. 
Reterend Sir — It is in contemplation to lay before the public a state- 
ment of the facts and circumstances relative to your call and installation 
here, together with the correspondence which has passed between your- 
self and others. As it is intended that this publication shall be scrupu- 
lously accurate and faithful to the truth in every particular, we shall es- 
teem it a favor if you will furnish us with a copy of the letter from Mr. 
Peabody to you, tog-ether with your answer. 

We are respectfully, yours, &c. 

SAMUEL HINCKLEY, 
Rev. Mark Tucker. JOSEPH LYMAN. 

To this the following answer was returned : 

Northampton^ August 10, 1824. 
Gentlemen — I received yours of yesterday. I cannot with my views 
propriety be instrumental in giving- to the public the letters, a copy of 
which you ask me to furnish you for that purpose. 

Yours respectfully, MARK TUCKER, 

Hon* Messrs. Hinckley &l Lyman. 



14 



iijg, that at any future time it would be agreeable to 
him to make an exchange. 

This Avas considered by Mr, Peabody a refusal to 
exchange, and was doubtless so intended by Mr. 
Tucker ; for knowing how it was understood, he has 
never undertaken to correct the mistake, if any was 
made in relation to the import of his letter. 

After two or three interviews with Mr. Tucker, 
without obtaining any satisfaction as to his view s or 
designs, the following letter was sent to Mr. Samuel 
Clarke.^ 

MR. TUCKER TO MR. CLARKE. 

jyorthamptoii^ May 8, 1824. 

Dear Sir, 

As you requested me to note down for you some 
remarks I made respecting my views and feelings in 
regard to the vote of the town, I cheerfully comply 
with your request. It is a matter of extreme regret 
to me that any difficulty should have arisen in rela- 
tion to it. My understanding of it is that it left me 
to act independently of any party. If it had been 
different, or expressed an imwilliiigness that I should 
have exchanged with, or invited into the pulpit, min- 
isters differing from me in religious sentiment, I 
should not have approved of it, because it might have 
been construed into an act of illiberality, and a pledge 
to the strict party. For the same reason I could not 
have approved of a vote of any town, which construc- 
tively laid me under a pledge to a liberal party. I 
always said that I would give no pledges, nor come 
under obligation to any party : Still I have no con- 
scientious scruples about admitting into the pulpit 
any pious clergymen of any denomination of chris- 

* 0i7='At the last interview with Mr. Tucker, Mr. Lyman proposed to 
him to request Mr. Bates, Mr. Strong^ and Mr. Whitney, to meet Mr. 
Hinckley, Mr. Howe and himself, at Mr. Tucker's house, to see how 
they understood the vote of the town, and to see if some arrangement 
could be made which should be satisfactory to all the parties. This pro- 
position has never been any farther noticed by Mr. Tucker. 



lb 



tians. I expect 7iow to admit such into the desk- 
But I am not willing to commit myself — to be con- 
sidered as pledged to any party : 1st. Because I did 
not so understand the vote of the town. 2d. Because 
I consider every minister should be left to act inde- 
pendently, though kindly and charitably. 3d, Be- 
cause I am unwilling to be involved in controversy. 
I am a man of peace. The Orthodox, I have no 
doubt, are sincere and conscientious. I cannot give 
my countenance nor lend my influence to break down 
what they think right, though others think it illib- 
eral ; nor do I feel at liberty to say of the Unitarians 
as a body, that they are no Christians. I wish to 
seek peace and pursue it. 

With great respect, yours in haste, 

MAUK TUCKER. 

Mr. Samuel Clarke^ 

Soon after, the succeeding correspondence passed 
between Mr. Tucker and Mr. Joseph Lyman. 

MR. TUCKER TO MR. LYMAN, 
Honored and dear Sir, 

I thank you for the perusal of the pamphlet you 
were so kind as to send me, and for the pains you 
were so good as to take in transcribing for me the 
vote of the town. 

As to the pamphlet I think it breathes a kind spirit 
which I like ; the points of doctrine in it are such as 
do not become me to remark upon. I am bound to 
respect the candor and conscience of every man. 

As to the vote of the town, perhaps you w^ere not 
aware that the Clerk forwarded it with the Call. It 
is a matter of extreme regret to me, that any discre- 
pancy of opinion should exist in relation to it. As I 
remarked at the last interview at my house, with 
yourself and Judge Howe and Judge Hinckley, my 
understanding of it was that it left me to act a course 
independent of any party. If it had been different. 



16 



or expressed an unwillingness that I should have ex- 
changed with or invited into the pulpit ministers dif- 
fering from me in reiigious sentiment, I should not 
have approved of it, because it might have been con- 
strued into an act of illiberality, and a pledge on my 
part, (though fully Orthodox myself in sentiment,) 
to the Strict party. For the same reason I could not 
have approved of a vote of any town, which construc- 
tively laid me under a pledge to a Liberal party^ — 
especially after what I had previously said in con- 
versation with my liberal friends before the town 
meeting, that I would give no pledge — that I would 
be under no obligation to exchange with a Trinita- 
rian or Unitarian; at the same time I expected to 
act on kind and catholic principles. I remarked at 
the above named interview, what I observed to Judge 
Howe before the committee of the town in answer 
to a question of his, that I had no conscientious scru- 
ples about admitting into the pulpit any pious cler- 
gyman of any denomination of Christians. Nor have 
I now. I expected then — I now expect to admit 
into the pulpit pious clergymen who differ from me 
in sentiment. But I am not willing to commit myself 
— to be considered as pledged to any party — because 
1st. I did not so understand the vote of the town. 
2dly. Because I consider every minister should be 
left to act independently, though I believe he should 
ever feel and act kindly. 3dly. Because it was re- 
marked at the above named interview, that yourself 
and friends felt themselves called upon to break down 
the intolerance and illiberality of associations of min- 
isters formed in this commonwealth, as you supposed, 
against Unitarians. 

I am a man of peace. I wish to take no ground 
against any man. I wish to avoid the controversy 
that embitters so many against each other in this 
state. I have no liberty to decide what body of men 
are no Christians, especially so long as I am ignorant 
of their belief and religious character. I hope you 



17 



will not feel yourself called upon to oppose those 
who differ from you in other parts of the state — if 
they oppose you, I trust you will not them. 

I still wish to cherish the highest personal regard 
for yourself and friends of your sentiment I shall 
not forget your attentions and kindness. I leave at 
the foot of the cross all unpleasant feeling. Do not 
let us separate when we are not called to sacrifice 
any principle. 

With sentiments of respect, I am, dear sir, 

Yours affectionately, 
MARK TUCKER. 

Hon. Joseph Lyman. 

MR. LYMAN TO MR. TUCKER. 

May 11, 1824. 

Kev. and dear Sir, 

I received your kind communication, explaining 
your views of the vote of the town, for which I thank 
you, and I equally regret with you that there should 
have ever been any misunderstanding respecting it 
I never supposed there could be, for on the day of 
the town meeting, and for several daj^s after, all sects 
were applauding themselves for having given an ex- 
ample of an enlarged and liberal policy worthy of 
imitation by others and of themselves as Christians. 

In one point, and which I consider the main point 
in the case, we are perfectly agreed, that is that It 
was the intention of the vote that you should pursue 
a course independent of any party," that you should 
regard alike all denominations of Christians, as it res- 
pected your intercourse with the pious teachers of 
those denominations. 

I was perfectly satisfied with this course in conse- 
quence of the noble spirit of Catholicism which you 
displayed in your various conversations with me ; 
OTid I did consider you on that account, the greatest 
3 



18 



blessing heaven could send us. I am too an advocate 
for peace, and I wish to avoid controversy as much 
as any man, and for that very reason I was highly 
pleased with the vote of the town, because I believ- 
ed the tendency of it was to put down all " envy- 
ings, v/rath, strife and evil speaking" among men. — - 
In my converse with you I hope that I shall ahvays 
be respectful and free from all bitterness, and I am 
happy that it has now assumed an epistolary shape, 
which will be exempt from that earnestness and zeal 
in conversation, which is often miscalled temper and 
a bad disposition of the heart. " It is my intention 
to follow peace with all men," and whatever differ- 
ences arise, I hope that we shall be governed by the 
precept of the great Apostle of the Gentiles — " in 
malice be ye as children, but in understanding men.'' 
In order therefore to fully understand if there is 
any essential difference of opinion between us upon 
this great principle of Catholicism, which has been 
manifested by the people of your charge, I will thank 
you to reply to the following queries : 

1. Whether you consider the vote of the town as 
extending to exchanges as well as invitations ? 

2. Whether you intend to invite any Unitarian 
clergyman to preach for you on the sabbath at any 
future time ? 

3. Whether you consider that there is any differ* 
ence in principle between invitations and exchanges.'^ 
— if so, be pleased to explain the difference. 

That the God of all truth may scatter light, and 
not darkness, in our paths, and make us all in our 
several callings useful here, and in his own due time 
and way everlastingly happy, is the constant and 
earnest prayer of your friend 

JOSEPH LYMAN. 

Rev. Mark Tucker. 



19 



MR. TUCKER TO MR. LYMAN. 

JVorthampton, May 17, 1824. 

Honored and dear Sir, 

III health and interruptions have prevented my 
giving the subject of your very friendly communica- 
tion that reflection I could wish in order to return a 
satisfactory answer. I think the least discussion will 
promote the most peace. 

I was not aware that the vote of the town placed 
me under any obligation to invite or exchange with 
any minister. It was expressly said before the com- 
mittee of the town (and all the members appeared 
to concur in it) " this was left with me," as it must 
be left with every other minister. 

I had no idea you would consider invitations and 
exchanges as so synonymous as to suppose that be- 
cause I should be willing to invite, therefore I must 
for the same reason exchange. During my visit 
here, I spoke without hesitancy of invitations, be- 
cause I understood that until some few years pre- 
vious it had been the custom here, and I was ex- 
pressly told that it would be satisfactory if things 
should return to their former state ; but I did not so 
speak of exchanges. On that subject I alw ays said 
I could give no answer. I did not know the state of 
things in Massachusetts, and therefore could not say 
w^hat ground it would be proper for me to take.^ — 
This remark I more than once repeated. 

I had no idea the question of exchanges would be- 
come a subject of feeling and contention here ; nor 
had I the most distant thought that I should be con- 
sidered by any as pledged on this point. My disap- 
ointment on this subject is extreme. How soon 
as our fair morning been overcast with clouds ! But 
do not let us contend. Your own delicacy and con- 
descension, when alluding to this whole subject dur- 
ing my first visit, won me very much. I should be 



20 



sorry if any thing should occur to affect that frank- 
ness and affection I have always been accustomed to 
manifest towards all men. 

Yours, with much consideration, 

MARK TUCKER. 

4 ANSWER TO THE LAST DATED 

Northampton^ May 25, 1824. 

ttev. and dear Sir, 

I received yours of the 17th inst two days after 
its date, and regret exceedingly " that any thing 
should occur to affect that frankness and affection'^ 
which you say, you " have been accustomed to man* 
ifest towards all men." This event has already 
occurred, it appears to me, if you consider that 
communication as a reply to the queries, which I 
thought I w^as justified in putting to you on the 11th 
instant. Your belief, that " the least discussion will 
promote the most peace," may be a very comfortable 
doctrine for those, who consider themselves infalli- 
ble, but not for those, who seek truth, and who con- 
sider their rights wholly disregarded. 

You say that you were expressly told, " that it 
would be satisfactory if things should return to their 
former state." We say so now. What was the for- 
mer state ? It was this : All congregational ministers 
were treated alike, and you were expressly told, that 
the Rev. Mr. Williams had once agreed on an ex- 
change with the Rev. Mr. Willard, and the day ap- 
pointed for it to take place, but that he was prevent- 
ed from this exercise of liberality, by clergy men^ 
who call themselves Orthodox^ in this vicinity, and 
who refused to grant him aid, in case he should as- 
sist Mr. Willard. It was this principle, or rather this 
practice, that was intended to be put down,^ by the 
people of your charge. It was^so expressly stated 
by Jvidge Hinckley, in the discussion which took 
place in town meeting. Since that time, and within 



21 



a short period, Mr. Peabody has been settled at 
Springfield, and no offer to exchange was ever made 
by him to Mr. Williams, and good cause existed why 
no such offer could be made. Mr. Williams was fet- 
tered (perhaps now voluntarily so) by the association 
of ministers in this count}^ 

This refusal to exchange is a custom not so old as 
you imagine. It is not universal now by any means. 
You had many bright examples to follow. The Rev. 
Dr. Emmons of Franklin, Dr. Sumner of Shrews- 
bury, the Rev. Dr. Parish of Byfield, the Rev. Dr. 
Holmes of Cambridge, Rev. Mr. Puffer of Berlin, 
Rev. Mr. Clark of Rutland, with many others, who 
are now living, and who embrace the calvinistic faith, 
"and last, though not least," Rev. Dr. Osgood of 
Medford, and Rev. Dr. Lathrop of West Springfield, 
who are now called to their final account. And think 
you that these eminent servants of the Most High 
are excluded from the realms of light, in consequence 
of their acknowledging Arminians, Arians and Unita- 
rians as christian brethren ? 

The contest between us is not about speculative 
opinions. It is a contest between truth and error, 
upon a subject of practical importance. This was 
well known to you before your settlement with us. 
You now say, that upon the subject of exchanges, 
you always said (this I suppose alludes to the period 
before your settlement) you " could give no answer," 
that you " did not know the state of things in Massa- 
chusetts, and therefore could not say what ground it 
would be proper for you to take ;" and you add that 
" this remark you more than once repeated." May I 
be permitted to ask, to whom you made this remark ? 
No one, who advocated this principle, recollects any 
such remark. Indeed the difference between ex- 
changes and invitations was never suggested to any 
one, who did advocate this principle, until since your 
refusal to exchange with Mr. Peabody, aud indeed 



even now I cannot induce any one to explain to me 
the difference in principle. 

You " did not know the state of things in Massa- 
chusetts." One gentleman well recollects your hav- 
ing said that " you did not wish to know," that you 
" wished to remain ignorant," that you " could in that 
way better pursue an honest and independent course, 
unfettered by any associations of ministers." 

To two other gentlemen you said, that your " ideas 
on the subject of exchanges were the same as Dr. 
Notfs, and that the only reason why Dr. Nott re- 
fused the call of the Park Street Church was, that 
the people of that parish would not permit him to 
exchange with the Unitarian ministers of Boston." 
Was not this " speaking of exchanges ?" 

To another gentleman, w^ho never doubted that 
you would exchange with, as well as invite clergy- 
men of his own sentiments into the desk, and who 
mentioned to you that there would be an unreasona- 
ble interference on the part of the clergymen of this 
vicinity, you said, that you apprehended no difficulty 
on that account — " that they could be managed^^ — that 
if you should receive a call, and should accept it, you 
should invite Dr. Nott to preach your installation 
sermon, and that he would put down every thing of 
that sort. After this no difficulty was ever appre- 
hended, or even suggested itself to my mind, except 
that which might arise on the part of my fellow^ 
townsmen ; and when I found that difficulty done 
away by a unanimous vote of the town, the " fair 
morning" commenced. It was the happiest hour of 
my life. The spirit of exclusion and intolerance, 
which had been so much fostered among us for fif- 
teen years past, I was sure would find but little nour- 
ishment within the sphere of your influence, and that 
the time had already arrived, when the best passport 
to the affections and fellowship of our christian breth- 
ren, would no longer be a subscription to their creeds^ 



23 



and the utterance of their shibboleth, but a life of 
christian virtue and practical godliness, — or in other 
words — a religious practice founded on its proper 
basis, charity, toleration, and personal goodness. 

But to return to the questions which I proposed 
to you. They were so plain and simple, that I could 
not imagine a week's reflection could be necessary 
to enable you to answer them ; and that you, who 
have been so frank and candid, should so entirely 
have omitted to notice them. They were not pro- 
posed from motives of idle curiosity, but to enable 
me the better to understand some expressions in 
your letter, and to know the ground on which we 
stood, and what we might hereafter expect. You 
deceive yourself if you suppose a submission to the 
course of conduct, which you now seem disposed to 
pursue, does not require of us " the sacrifice of any 
principle.'' It is not a question of rites and ceremo- 
nies, that we are contending about, but one of prin- 
ciple — a principle that involves the dearest rights of 
christian freemen. 

To the first inquiry made by me, to wit, whether 
you consider the vote of the town as extending to 
exchanges as well as invitations, you merely reply 
by stating how far you consider the vote binding on 
you, or rather how far it did not bind you* You had 
already expressed yourself very fully on this point. 
The question was not how far the vote binds you, 
but what it embraces as far as it does extend. 

To my second inquiry you have not given a word 
of reply, nor is it even noticed by you. The inquiry 
is an interesting one to me, and I can see no reason 
why it should not receive a frank and ingenuous 
answer. 

To the third inquiry, as to the difference between 
exchanges and invitations, you say you had no idea 
I considered them " so synonymous" as to suppose 
that because you should be willing to invite, there- 



24 



fore you must for the same reason exchange. I made 
the inquiry with a view to learn from you the differ^ 
ence in principle between them, and if it be so obvi- 
ous as you seem to suppose, it could be no great 
trouble to you to point it out. As you had never 
made the slightest allusion to any difference in any 
conversation I had with you before your settlement, 
nor in any conversation with any of my friends, of 
which I have ever heard,— as they were both equal- 
ly embraced in the vote of the tow^n, and as I cannot 
now perceive the difference between inviting a man 
into the desk from Springfield or from Mr. Lyman's 
tavern, I hope you will not think it strange that I 
should consider the two things as standing on the 
same foundation. 

You speak of the difference between exchanges 
and invitations as having long existed in your mind, 
and having been distinctly recognized by you before 
your settlement. If so, " it is strange, passing strange,'' 
that it should not have been mentioned by you at the 
time the vote, embracing both, was read to you by 
the committee. You expressed your entire and cor- 
dial approbation of the vote, and said as I understood 
you to admit, that you had no conscientious scruples 
about carrying it into effect. In your first letter you 
say that you told Judge Howe when the vote was 
read to you, that you had no conscientious scruples 
about admitting into the pulpit any pious clergyman 
of any denomination of christians. The question put> 
to you was not about admitting or excluding, but 
whether you had any conscientious scruples about 
carrying it into effect. The vote says nothing about 
admissions, but speaks of exchanges and invitations, 
and this made me desirous to know whether you 
considered the vote as extending equally to both, or 
whether, in the language of your letter, it extended 
to admissions merely, which might embrace both or 
either. In one part of your letter, you couple ex* 



25 



changes and invitations together in their natural or- 
der as they are connected in the vote, and as they 
have ever existed in 'my mind. But where you speak 
of what you expect and are willing to do, or have no 
conscientious scruples about, you drop these words 
and substitute admissions into the pulpit and invita- 
tions to preach. I hope there is no design in this, 
yet I must confess that I am a little at a loss after all 
that has passed, whether you intend to say, you have 
no conscientious scruples about exchanging with a 
clergyman who is known to be a Unitarian. 

Are you certain that you now know the state of 
things in Massachusetts ? All the information you 
can have received upon the subject since your first 
visit to us has probably been derived from a partial 
source. The time has happily arrived, when the 
Orthodox (falsely so called in my opinion) have ceas- 
ed to be formidable ; when names have lost their 
terror, and a man may confess without fear, through 
what channels he receives knowledge and truth. 

I will now close this letter with the following sen- 
timents uttered by christians as holy, as pious, and 
as learned as any of your orthodox brethren : " We 
cannot preserve the unity of belief : we may^ how- 
ever, keep " the unity of the spirit in the bond of 
peace." Amid these differences, we may preserve 
our fellow-feelings bright and pure ; we may learn 
to respect that faith, however mistaken, which bring- 
eth forth good works ; we may realize, if we please, 
that state of feeling, which might lead us in another 
world to look back on these differences with regret, 
j^. and think of them as the shadows of a summer cloud, 
which for a short time has darkened pur sun, but will 
then have passed rapidly away." 

— Wherever there is charity and good feeling 
between ministers and the members of different re- 
ligious societies, together with a regard to the ordi- 
nances and obedience to the laws of religion, there 
4 



26 



IS manifested the spirit of Christ and the power of 
the gospel ; but wherever there is arrogance and 
spiritual pride, wherever religion is made a matter 
of form, wherever the different sects regard each 
other Avith aversion or contempt, and wherever the 
clergymen of one denomination fold their garments 
about them, and stand aloof in surprising dignity and 
infallibility from the clergymen of another, there is 
a spirit which Christianity condemns-^wh ether it be 
at Boston, New York, Philadelphia or Baltimore ; 
and we would say it with equal boldness to a Unita- 
rian minister, a Methodist lay-preacher, a Presbyte- 
rian clergyman, a Catholic priest or a mitred bishop.-' 
Yours respectfully, 

JOSEPH LYMAN. 

Rev. Mark Tucker. 

The correspondence was begun by Mr. Tucker, 
and the last letter of Mr. Lyman remains unanswer- 
ed. The reasons for this silence are best known to 
Mr. Tucket. 

From these facts, and circumstances which occur- 
red previous to Mr. Tucker's ordination, what course 
had the Liberal party a right to expect Mr. Tucker 
w^ould pursue ? What they did expect we know for 
a certainty, whether rightly or not, remains to be 
shewn. They did expect, that Unitarian ministers 
would not only be invited to preach occasionally in 
the pulpit, but that exchanges would be made with 
them. They did expect, that neither of these acts 
of christian courtesy would be refused or denied. 
They took the most unwearied pains to convince 
Mr. Tucker, that nothing short of this, would be 
deemed by them an equivalent for the great sacri- 
fice they should make, in contributing to the settle- 
ment and support of a man whose sentiments were 
so widely different from their o^vn. 



27 



In all the conversations between him and the Uni- 
tarians, he never intimated that any difficulty about 
this intercourse could originate with him. He never 
referred to any other circumstance, which could pos- 
sibly deter, or even delay, him from pursuing the 
course they wished, except what might result from 
the opposition of a considerable number of his society. 

They were led to be more explicit upon this sub- 
ject with Mr. Tucker, from considering the region 
of country from which he came. They knew that 
Unitarianism had been treated with a degree of 
harshness and severity, by some of the leading di- 
vines in New York, not only incompatible with the 
exercise of christian charity, but altogether unrival- 
led by any class of people claiming to be christians, 
in New England. 

When he was so often told, the Unitarians could 
never concur in giving him a call, unless the pulpit 
could be opened equally to all, and invitations and 
exchanges placed upon the same liberal ground as- 
sumed by the church here in relation to the subject 
of communion, it is extremely to be regretted, that 
he should never have intimated that any difficulty 
could arise with him on the subject, either from con- 
scientious scruples, or from a desire to uphold the 
opinions or practices of any sect or party. 

If any distinction existed between invitations and 
exchanges^ it is extremely to be regretted, that it 
should never have been adverted to by Mr. Tucker, 
in any conversation of his, or that it should not have 
been alluded to, in the public discussions upon the 
subject. No such intimation or allusion was ever 
made, and both subjects are equally comprised in 
the vote of the town. 

It is said, that the vote of the town did not bind 
Mr. Tucker ; it left him free to act as he pleaseir^' 
Nobody ever pretended that the vote itself, bound 
him — neither did the vote giving him a call bind him 



28 



to accept it. He was at liberty to reject the propo- 
sal made to him altogether, or to object to any qual- 
ification of it, which the vote contained. But he did 
neither — he expressed his cordial approbation of the 
vote — said he had no conscientious scruples about 
carrying it into effect^ and accepted the call upon 
the condition that he could be dismissed from his 
society in Stillwater. After this acceptance, w^e 
think he was pledged to those who gave him the 
call, and that he was bound to govern himself by the 
spirit which they had manifested. 

It is said Mr. Tucker refused to pledge himself 
before his settlement to make exchanges with any one. 
If the word pledge is used in its strict literal mean- 
ing, it will not be pretended that any w as given. — 
But the word is used in a figurative sense, and its 
meaning depends much upon the subject to which it 
is applied. A pledge to pay money, is one thing, 
and is to be proved in one way, w^hile a pledge of 
affection, and the proof of it, is another. It would 
hardly be thought prudent, to depend on the mere 
word or assurance of an individual as a pledge for 
the conveyance of a valuable estate, while, as a pledge 
for one's feelings, or opinions, it would be thought 
highly unreasonable to ask any thing more. If Mr. 
Tucker means to sa}' , that his acts and declarations 
did not amount to an assurance (and a solemn assur- 
ance too,) that the expectations of the Liberal party 
should be realised, we think he is not warranted in 
the position, by the facts in the case. We do not 
now perceive what more could have been done by 
us to secure the object we had in view. The vote 
speaks of exchanges and invitations — the preamble 
shews the object of it to be, equality of rights — the 
designs of the supporters had been fully explained 
to Mr. Tucker ; if he put a construction upon the 
vote different from theirs, the plainest principles of 
common honesty required, that he should have stat- 



29 



ed that difference at the time. Mr, Tucker knew 
how persons, wlio proposed the vote, vmderstood it, 
and he is bound by that construction, however dif- 
ferent his own might have been. 

After this review of the facts attending this trans- 
action, we think we may with confidence insist, that 
Mr. Tucker did give a pledge that he would pursue 
a liberal and catholic course. That he would not 
undertake to exclude from the pulpit any pious 
christian minister, on account of any difference in 
religious opinion, even though the strict party might 
think his conduct improper. 

We think that it can be shewn from Mr. Tucker's 
declarations, that he considers his approval of the 
vote as a pledge of his intentions to conform to the 
spirit of it. In his letter to Mr. Clarke he says, " if 
the vote had been different, or had expressed an un- 
willingness that I should exchange with Unitarian 
ministers, I could not have approved of it." Why 
not ? " Because," says he, " such approval might be 
construed into pledge to the Strict party." A pledge 
to do what ? Why, to carry the vote (which in the 
case supposed they had procured to be passed) into 
eflfect. Approving a vote then, under such circum* 
stances, does constitute a pledge^ by the party ap- 
proving, to carry the spirit of the vote into effect/ 
Mr. Tucker has never pretended that he did not ex- 
press his entire and cordial approbation of the pres- 
ent vote of the town when it was read, and the infer- 
ence is irresistible, that he did thereby pledge him- 
self to the Liberal party by whom it was introduced, 
that his conduct should conform to the spirit of that 
vote. 

Mr. Tucker probably gave no other pledge^ nor 
was any asked, as to his views of religion, or as to 
the doctrines he should preach here. Suppose that 
in one month after his settlement, he had come out 
with an avowal of his sentiments as an Universalist. 



30 



and had stated that these had always been his sen-^ 
timents. Suppose some orthodox member of his 
society had called on him for an explanation of his 
conduct Might he not have said, "Sir, I never 
gave any pledge that I was not an Universalist, or 
that I would not preach those sentiments when I was 
settled. No pledge was ever asked of me on the 
subject, and I did not intend to pledge myself to any 
party. To be sure, the sentiments I preached before 
my settlement were somewhat different from those 
I now preach ; yet, in many points, there is a strong 
resemblance between Calvinism and Universalism. 
I was told that the principal danger apprehended 
here, was from Unitarianism, and if I did not preach 
that, it would be satisfactory, and at any rate I be- 
lieve the Universalists are sincere and conscientious^ 
and I cannot give my countenance or lend my in flu- 
ence to break down what they think rights though you 
think differently.'" Would not the reply be, " Sir, 
you knew you were sent for to preach to a Calvin- 
istic society — you knew, if you were not directly 
told so, that we could give a call to none but a Cal- 
vinist — you never avowed any sentiments inconsist- 
ent with those which you knew we should approve. 
You knew we gave you your call as a Calvinistic 
minister, and your acceptance of it was a pledge of 
your sentiments, and of the doctrines you intended 
to preach, as solemn and binding as the nature of 
the case would admit. If more was said about Uni^ 
tarianism, than Universalism, it was because we ap- 
prehended more danger from that quarter — were 
more likely to suffer by them, than by Universalists, 
but we considered your acceptance of the call given 
you by the town as a pledge^ that you intended to 
preach the doctrines you knew they were willing to 
hear." Conclusive and satisfactory as this answer 
must be to every ingenuous mind, we cannot per- 
ceive that it stands on better ground in any par4 



31 



than the answer we have made to Mr. Tucker ; or 
that he was any more pledged to preach the doc- 
trines of Calvmism, or that the orthodox would have 
any more reason to complain of him now for sup- 
porting the doctrines of Universalism, than we have 
to complain of him for his treatment of us on the 
subject of exchanges. 

Suppose Mr. Tucker had never said one word on 
the subject of invitations or exchanges before his 
settlement. If the town are willing he should ex- 
change, and he has no objections himself, what 
should prevent the desires of a respectable part of 
his society from being gratified ? It has been object- 
ed by some, who are opposed to exchanges and in- 
vitations, that they are acts of fellowship, and that 
those who believe in the doctrine of special conver- 
sion cannot exercise any act of fellowship, except 
towards those who have been specially converted. 
But this ground, whether true or false, cannot be 
maintained here. There is no act, which is more 
strikingly an act of fellowship, than joining in the 
celebration of the Lord's supper. There is a stand- 
ing vote of the Church here, that all christian pro- 
fessors shall be invited to join in the Communion, 
though it was known, when the vote was passed, 
that it would extend to, and it was intended it should 
be accepted by, professed Unitarians. It is also well 
known that there are members of this Church who 
are Unitarians. After having accepted a call over a 
church thus situated, it would hardly do to pretend 
to any objection on the score of fellowship. 

It has sometimes been objected, that it was a der- 
eliction of duty in a minister, to expose his people 
to hear any opinions preached, which he does not 
himself approve. That to suffer Unitarians to preach 
in the desk, is to afford them an opportunity to cor- 
rupt the minds of their hearers, by preaching opin- 
ions inconsistent with Orthodoxy. But the little 



32 



semblance of plausibility this argument ever possess- 
ed, is lost by consenting to invite ministers of all 
persuasions ; and Mr. Tucker has in this case aban- 
doned it, by saying, he is willing and expects to in- 
vite Unitarian ministers to preach for him. He is 
willing then that his people should hear ministers, 
with whom his principles will not suffer him to ex- 
change. It certainly can make no difference in the 
effect upon the people here, whether Mr. Peabody 
is invited to preach before he leaves Springfield, or 
after his arrival in this town. It probably would 
have no effect upon the doctrines he should preach, 
and if the people of his charge are cut off from the 
knowledge of the truth — if the gospel, in its purity, 
is never sounded in their ears by their present min- 
ister, there could hardly be a greater act of christian 
charity, than to afford them an opportunity to hear 
the whole truth. . Why go to India to make converts, 
when they may be ma5e so much nearer home } A 
soul in Springfield is surely as precious as a soul in 
Thibet, to say nothing of their being " our kinsmen 
according to the flesh.'' A preacher, coming to them 
in this way, would not meet that opposition which 
might be excited, if he was forced upon them. 

We think many positive advantages Avould result 
from extending the practice of exchanges in this 
neighborhood. It would be a strong excitement to 
improvement among ministers, an excitement they 
are thought by some to need. It would tend to in-* 
crease brotherly love among ministers ; and, among 
the people, would overcome those prejudices which 
we are so prone to feel, towards those who differ 
from us in opinion. 

A union of belief among christians is not to be 
expected, till the character of the human race is 
changed. Upon a subject so vast and complicated 
as the christian religion— which the mind cannot 
embrace at one view, and which presents so different 



33 



an aspect to the same individual, when viewed in 
different parts and under various circumstances — it 
can never be, that mankind should be brought to 
think exactly alike. But an uniformity of spirit may 
be obtained ; and, we flattered ourselves that the 
measure we had adopted, was an important step to- 
wards the diffusion of that " brotherly love," which 
is the " fulfilling of the law." 

It may be thought by some, that the subject is of 
small importance, and so it w^ould be, were it not 
for the principle it embraces. It must be a very 
small thing to Mr. Tucker, who noAV says he has 
no conscientious scruples upon the subject, to make 
occasional exchanges with Mr. Willard, Mr. Hunt- 
ington, Mr. Peabody, and Mr. Bailey; but to the 
Liberal party it is a matter of great importance. — 
This is the only way in which intolerance and illib- 
erality can be effectually extinguished. 

Those who concurred in the vote of the town, or 
who approve its spirit, agree in sentiment on this 
subject, that the peace and welfare of society re- 
quire that this intolerance and illiberality should be 
ended. They have witnessed, with deep regret, the 
divisions and dissensions which have prevailed in 
the community, and they think that the only way to 
end them is by conforming to the spirit of the Gos- 
pel and the times, by putting all denominations of 
christians upon an equal footing. 

To the Unitarians, it is a matter of still greater 
importance. The Calvinistic congregationalists have 
refused to invite Unitarian ministers to preach for 
them, because they have undertaken to say they 
were not Christians. By the constitution of our 
churches they are all placed on an equal footing, and 
are all entitled to be treated with courtesy and res- 
pect. 

The right of one church to withhold fellowship 
from another church, at its own option by a sove* 
5 



34 



reign vote, and thus perhaps without a just cause to 
wound its sensibihties and stigmatize its reputation, 
has been in the most exphcit manner denied by a 
committee of the General Association of Massachu- 
setts, in a public document of no little notoriety. — 
The baneful influence such a principle would have, 
and the ecclesiastical despotism it would introduce, 
are both noticed by the committee. 

If this w^ould be a dangerous principle in the hands 
of a churchy we think it would not be less dangerous 
in the hands of the clergy. If the refusal of a church 
to have fellowship with another church, is calculated 
to " stigmatize its reputation," the refusal of a cler- 
gyman to do this cannot have a different effect. — 
And why is the reputation of Mr. Peabody to be 
stigmatized by this refusal ? Simply, because he is 
an Unitarian ; and, if those who are Unitarians were 
to sit down quietly under this reproach, and were to 
continue to support and uphold those by whom they 
were thus treated, would it not be in a measure 
agreeing, that the censure was deserved. The name 
of Christian is dear to us, in common with all the 
followers of our blessed Lord. That we should be 
patient under any attempt to rob us of it, we think 
could hardly be expected. To be ranked with "Jews, 
Mahometans and Pagans,'' as we have been by Dr. 
Mason, or with " the Prince of Darkness," m the 
sweeping and emphatic language of Dr. Proudfit, 
would not, we presume, be very grateful to any of 
our opponents. Yet these epithets are only disa- 
greeable because they stigmatize ivith reproach those 
on whom they are bestowed, and if refusing to ex- 
change has, as the Orthodox say, the same effect, it 
must be equally contemned. If this reproach were 
bestow^ed on us individually, it might be borne with 
patience ; but, when it is bestow ed upon our friends, 
and the faith we profess, it would be treachery to 
our principles to submit to it ; and, especially to sup- 
port and uphold those by whom it is bestowed. 



35 



The vote of the church directing the pastor to 
invite to the communion table members of other 
churches, without distinction, manifested a noble, 
catholic spirit, and the vote of the town upon the 
subject of invitations and exchanges^ so contrary to 
the predictions (not the wishes) of some of the Or- 
thodox, evinced a regard to the rights and feelings 
of others, which will ever reflect the highest honor 
upon them. How they understood the proposition 
submitted to them, and what they intended by the 
vote they adopted, we cannot doubt for a moment. 
The qviestion is not what the town wish or what the 
Liberal party desire. It is whether the pulpit shall 
be under the control of the society, or whether, 
against their wishes, it shall be closed at the pleas- 
ure of " the Strict party." We did think the wishes 
of this large and respectable society, in relation to a 
subject upon which Mr. Tucker had " no conscien- 
tious scruples," would be sufficient to influence his 
conduct ; but in this we were mistaken. It is the 
rules prescribed by " the Strict party," which are to 
govern his conduct. 

We have felt it due to ourselves, that our motives 
and our conduct should be fully explained. The 
total failure of our attempt, " to keep the spirit of 
unity in the bond of peace," is a bitter disappoint- 
ment ; but it becomes neither christians nor men, to 
cry " peace, peace, when there is no peace ;" and, 
we hope we have expressed our disappointment in a 
spirit of christian candor, and without violating the 
" new commandment" of our blessed Lord, to " love 
one another." 



V/ 



i 



...... iiiTied using the Bookkeeper process 

Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIOf 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



^^^^^^^^^ 

^^ ^.^ 



if 



* > > > 
► >^ > > *^ 

* » > - :k ■- 
lafc ■>»>,. 

^ >■ 



> ■- >>>j»>> > 



>3> 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



llllllj 








! 










L7 452 31 




t 6 



